Appeal No. 1997-3854
Application No. 08/414,824
and further note the “specific waveform” has not been set forth in the language of claims 1
and 10. Therefore, argument thereto is not persuasive.
Appellant argues that the combined teachings of the applied references do not
teach or suggest the claimed invention and that the examiner used improper hindsight to
reconstruct the claimed invention. (See brief at pages 11- 12.) We disagree with
appellant. We find that the examiner has set forth a prima facie case of obviousness
which has not been rebutted or shown to be deficient. Therefore, we will sustain the
rejection of claim 10. Similarly, the rejection of claims 1 and 4 is sustained since they are
grouped with claim 10.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1, 4 and 10 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007